Full Version: Global Warming and Weather Events 2
Dr. James Lovelock believes that global warming will end the human race by the end of the 21st century (that is, this century) to the extent where the final human survivors will live in the Arctic.
Source: http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentat...ticle338830.ece
At least he's "eminent".
QUOTE
We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.
Source: http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentat...ticle338830.ece
At least he's "eminent".
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 20 2007, 10:40 PM) 
QUOTE
The World Health Organization reports that 3 million people now die each year from the effects of air pollution. This is three times the 1 million who die each year in automobile accidents. A study published in The Lancet in 2000 concluded that air pollution in France, Austria, and Switzerland is responsible for more than 40,000 deaths annually in those three countries. About half of these deaths can be traced to air pollution from vehicle emissions.
In the United States, traffic fatalities total just over 40,000 per year, while air pollution claims 70,000 lives annually. U.S. air pollution deaths are equal to deaths from breast cancer and prostate cancer combined. This scourge of cities in industrial and developing countries alike threatens the health of billions of people. http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm
In the United States, traffic fatalities total just over 40,000 per year, while air pollution claims 70,000 lives annually. U.S. air pollution deaths are equal to deaths from breast cancer and prostate cancer combined. This scourge of cities in industrial and developing countries alike threatens the health of billions of people. http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm
Got an answer sir?
Well, yes. One answer is to address the environmental concerns, right? I don't really care what justification is used - reducing global warming, saving lives, reducing our dependence on oil, or simply living in a cleaner environment - all are worthwhile reasons to go greener. Anybody who has ever taken a breath in Los Angeles has experienced enough pollution to know things are bad.
If it's the cost of making the changes that you were arguing against, there is a good case that has been made that countries (or just businesses) taking the lead in clean technologies are going to profit from it in the long run, both from the technology they have aquired and the energy they have saved.
Also, one should consider the worst-case scenarios for addressing or not addressing global warming. If you make the changes and global warming turns out to be nothing, then you have wasted some money, but also moved technology forward, cleaned up the environment, cut down on your energy costs, and lowered our dependence on foreign oil. But if you don't make the changes (or wait too long) and global warming turns out to be real, the Earth is very possibly screwed. It seems like a silly chance to take for a few dollars.
QUOTE
(Amlord)
Dr. James Lovelock believes that global warming will end the human race by the end of the 21st century (that is, this century) to the extent where the final human survivors will live in the Arctic.
QUOTE
We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.
Source: http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentat...ticle338830.ece
At least he's "eminent".
Dr. James Lovelock believes that global warming will end the human race by the end of the 21st century (that is, this century) to the extent where the final human survivors will live in the Arctic.
QUOTE
We are in a fool's climate, accidentally kept cool by smoke, and before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.
Source: http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentat...ticle338830.ece
At least he's "eminent".
Lovelock may be at the extreme end of scientific opinion about the consequences of global warming; however, simply sneering at him is not a rational argument against his position. Here is an Article that outlines his current position.
QUOTE
In making such a statement, far gloomier than any yet made by a scientist of comparable international standing, Professor Lovelock accepts he is going out on a limb. But as the man who conceived the first wholly new way of looking at life on Earth since Charles Darwin, he feels his own analysis of what is happening leaves him no choice. He believes that it is the self-regulating mechanism of Gaia itself - increasingly accepted by other scientists worldwide, although they prefer to term it the Earth System - which, perversely, will ensure that the warming cannot be mastered.
This is because the system contains myriad feedback mechanisms which in the past have acted in concert to keep the Earth much cooler than it otherwise would be. Now, however, they will come together to amplify the warming being caused by human activities such as transport and industry through huge emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ).
It means that the harmful consequences of human beings damaging the living planet's ancient regulatory system will be non-linear - in other words, likely to accelerate uncontrollably.
This is because the system contains myriad feedback mechanisms which in the past have acted in concert to keep the Earth much cooler than it otherwise would be. Now, however, they will come together to amplify the warming being caused by human activities such as transport and industry through huge emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ).
It means that the harmful consequences of human beings damaging the living planet's ancient regulatory system will be non-linear - in other words, likely to accelerate uncontrollably.
The whole point of my last post was to indicate that, while the IPCC and the consensus view of very serious consequences but not catastrophic ones if we act now remain the most probable, Lovelock and scientists with somewhat less dramatic predictions are more likely to be correct than those who argue that the consequences won't be serious.
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 13 2007, 11:10 AM)
QUOTE
TedN5
This happens all the time in science. It's why science is self correcting. In this particular case the error was insignificant but it did change the rank of warmest years in the US so that 1934 moved ahead of 1998 by a couple of hundredths of a degree. The ranking of warmest years for the whole world remained the same with 2005 warmest followed by the El Nino year of 1998 and all of other warmest falling in the 1998 to 2006 period. (See 1934 and All That)
This happens all the time in science. It's why science is self correcting. In this particular case the error was insignificant but it did change the rank of warmest years in the US so that 1934 moved ahead of 1998 by a couple of hundredths of a degree. The ranking of warmest years for the whole world remained the same with 2005 warmest followed by the El Nino year of 1998 and all of other warmest falling in the 1998 to 2006 period. (See 1934 and All That)
Ya right 1934 the warmest – show me the headlines? The massive news coverage correcting this Hugh gaff? Oh little exists – Right.
And then tell me how the CO2 increase is the major driver and that there was whet? In 1934??
QUOTE
Dingo
My point stands. Interpret as weirdly as you like. The evidence doesn't support you.
My point stands. Interpret as weirdly as you like. The evidence doesn't support you.
You lost me sir. LOOK at your graph and show me the worldwide “hockey stick” increase in temperatures due to GW? LOL.
Then here is Coleman on GW.
Weather Channel founder John Coleman calls global warming the greatest scam in human history.
By Sara Smith
Published: Nov 8, 2007, 5:47 PM EST
"John Coleman says that he's amazed on how many people have fallen for the global warming claims. Coleman said that climate change is a big lie.
Coleman, a weatherman himself who founded the Weather Channel, claims to have read dozens of scientific papers and spoke with numerous scientists, and they also agree that there is no such thing as global warming.
http://www.halflifesource.com/news/2007/11...rticle10005.htm
And imo half the scientists are into this crap for the nice meeting they have at great expence in nice places.
IPCC: Scientists and officials gather in Spain, to put together the last U.N. report
Scientists and government officials gather in Valencia, Spain, to put together the fourth and last U.N. report. The document will include new data and will be issued Saturday November 17, 2007.
If anyone is to blame for global warming its almost everyone. If someone is saying that global warming is the fault of conservatives like GW alone then they dont know what the hell there talking about, its that simple, pardon my french. This is not even primarily the fault of the U.S. let alone the president of the U.S. Most people have helped to cotribute to this problem in one way or another.
To put politics aside I say in all honesty that I rarely claim anything is certain. Im extremely confident however that the planet is warming, that much is hard to deny. As for whats causing it im probably 70% convinced it is the result of human activity. Its because of some very simple things we have come to understand as a species. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas with little doubt, we know the levels are unusualy high and really began to climb at about the same time the industrial revolution and deforestaion came into play. I'm still more convinced this is more of a deforestation problem than a problem with big industry though. For example, In comparison to the amount of CO2 billions of various mamals breath out everyday, the amount being emitted by industry and automobiles is actuly very small. Whats tipping the scale here isnt the CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere near as much as the vegitation we have removed. When I say we I dont mean conservatives, liberals, americans, or russians, I mean everyone with very few exceptions.
Its a matter of simple percenteges and numbers here, it really is. Im going to throw some deforestation stats at you, from nations we are all familiar with.
United States
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalch...t/deforest.html
QUOTE
Since 1600, 90% of the virgin forests that once covered much of the lower 48 states have been cleared away. Most of the remaining old-growth forests in the lower 48 states and Alaska are on public lands. In the Pacific Northwest about 80% of this forestland is slated for logging.
"Ive heard some say that the overal rate for deforestation in the U.S. is a loss of about 1/3 of the vegitation in the last 300 years."
-----------------------------------
Ahfganistan
http://www.yubanet.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/31/62235
QUOTE
"In the last two decades, we have lost over 70 percent of our forests throughout the country," Hotaky told IRIN on 29 July in the capital, Kabul.
-----------------------------------
Nigeria
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/20nigeria.htm
QUOTE
Between 1990 and 2005, the country lost a staggering 79 percent of these forests and since 2000 Nigeria has been losing an average of 11 percent of its primary forests per year—double the rate of the 1990s. These figures give Nigeria the dubious distrinction of having the highest deforestation rate of natural forest on the planet.
-----------------------------------
Africa
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ca.../africa/problem
QUOTE
In the DRC, rainforest covers 86 million hectares (about 40 percent of the country). Around 70 percent, or 60 million hectares, of the rainforest is threatened by logging. Between 2000 and 2005 the DRC lost over 1.5 million hectares of forest.
-----------------------------------
So what about the condition of the planet as a whole?
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ca...pearing-forests
QUOTE
We are destroying the world’s precious ancient forests at an unprecedented rate. An area of natural forest the size of a soccer pitch is cut down every two seconds.
A quarter of the forest lost in the last 10,000 years has been destroyed in the last 30 years. Forest loss has a direct link to loss of biodiversity. The current extinction rate of plant and animal species is around 1,000 times faster than it was in pre-human times – and this will increase to 10,000 times faster by 2050.
Scientists predict that the Earth is entering the sixth major extinction event in its history.
A quarter of the forest lost in the last 10,000 years has been destroyed in the last 30 years. Forest loss has a direct link to loss of biodiversity. The current extinction rate of plant and animal species is around 1,000 times faster than it was in pre-human times – and this will increase to 10,000 times faster by 2050.
Scientists predict that the Earth is entering the sixth major extinction event in its history.
This is serious stuff and even if all these figures are exgagerated, still even a 10% reduction in forest worldwide could cause damage to our climate. Many conservatives are scratching their head wondering how big industry alone can account for the increase of CO2 lately. Their right to wonder about that because it just doesn't add up. Industry is one small negative factor among many. What acounts for most of this increase in CO2, im almost positive is world-wide deforestation.
This is the piece of the puzzel that makes perect sence of this entire thing. A reduction of 10% of our vegitation worldwide means that the planet becomes roughy 10% less effecient at recyling CO2 into oxygen. A reduction of 50% of our vegitation worldwide means that the planet becomes roughy 50% less effecient at recyling CO2 into oxygen, and so on. The only thing responsible for creating oxygen on this planet that I know of is plant life and certian microorganisms.
Big Industry is an issue that needs fixing however, as far as how effective the kyoto treaty is I couldn't say but I do figure there are politicians using global warming to boost their position while spending untolds amounts of money of ideas, that in many cases are ineffective. This is going to have to be a global effort and this isnt an issue I believe anyone should use to point fingers at anyone else, becasue every nation including liberals and conservatives alike have fallen short on this one.
So in short i agree that this isue is being used to attack certain politicians, but in my case, just like with most scientist, this is a matter of science, not politics. I have no right or left wing agenda on this, in fact im a conservative republican myself.
QUOTE
Well, yes. One answer is to address the environmental concerns, right?
Right! Lets spend the 400 billion on cleaning up the air and water instead of the uncertain GW nonsense. And along the way we build more nuclear power and reduce CO2 as a side effect.
QUOTE
Also, one should consider the worst-case scenarios for addressing or not addressing global warming. If you make the changes and global warming turns out to be nothing, then you have wasted some money,
NO. Do not waste money better spent elsewhere. This costs millions of lives a year as I have posted. Spend the money on doing things to clean up the environment. If the warming continues we can spend money dealing with that.
Kyoto, as I have shown, has ZERO chance of reducing the growth of CO2 in any case – so sepnding 400 Billion + per year for failure is not money well spent – is it?
A day or 2 ago I posted a response to Net2007 but it got lost somewhere. After complimenting the work he put into his post on the loss of world forests, I disagreed with his conclusion that their loss was a major factor thus far in the rise of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I cited the following evidence from a 2 year old Realclimate.org article. (See CO2 and Human Activity).
For a somewhat less technical argument on the changing ratios of the carbon isotopes C12, C13, and C14 in the atmosphere, see the References Letter in Physics Today.
I went on to add that no one was blaming George Bush or heavy industry for GW but we were attacking them for placing road blocks in the war of comprehensive addressing the issue.
Closer to the topic of this thread Oxfam, one of the major NGOs responding to humanitarian crises, has published a report indicating the weather related disasters have quadrupled over the last 2 decades. (See Oxfam Article).
QUOTE
What about the land biosphere? We know that deforestation has contributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Yet because carbon needs to be conserved, observations of the carbon increase in the atmosphere and the oceans combined with estimates of fossil fuel burning tell us that deforestation has been largely compensated by enhanced growth by the land biosphere. For example, during 1980 to 1999, fossil fuel burning was 117±5 PgC, and the carbon increase in the atmosphere and the oceans were 65±1 and 37±8 PgC, respectively. Thus that leaves 15±9 PgC that has been taken up by the land. This 15±9 PgC includes deforestation (and other land-use changes) which reduced the land biosphere by 24±12 PgC, and an additional land uptake of 39±18 PgC in response to elevated CO2 and climate changes (Sabine et al. 2004). Here also there is some uncertainty about the exact amount, but there is no uncertainty that the land biosphere has taken up a quantity of CO2 that is roughly equivalent to the deforestation.
For a somewhat less technical argument on the changing ratios of the carbon isotopes C12, C13, and C14 in the atmosphere, see the References Letter in Physics Today.
QUOTE
Parallel decline of the 14C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. Strictly speaking, this is the "Suess effect," first observed, and correctly interpreted, by Hans Suess of the University of California, San Diego, in the early 1950s. The Suess effect occurs because fossil fuels do not contain 14C precisely because they are fossil—much older than 10 half-lives of 14C.
Parallel decline of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This phenomenon is linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon, which is strongly depleted in 13C.
Parallel decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere, which is the inescapable signature of an oxidation of carbon. If ocean warming were responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2.
Parallel decline of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This phenomenon is linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon, which is strongly depleted in 13C.
Parallel decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere, which is the inescapable signature of an oxidation of carbon. If ocean warming were responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2.
I went on to add that no one was blaming George Bush or heavy industry for GW but we were attacking them for placing road blocks in the war of comprehensive addressing the issue.
Closer to the topic of this thread Oxfam, one of the major NGOs responding to humanitarian crises, has published a report indicating the weather related disasters have quadrupled over the last 2 decades. (See Oxfam Article).
QUOTE
From an average of 120 disasters a year in the early 1980s, there are now as many as 500, with Oxfam attributing the rise to unpredictable weather conditions cause(d) by global warming.
QUOTE
From an average of 120 disasters a year in the early 1980s, there are now as many as 500, with Oxfam attributing the rise to unpredictable weather conditions cause(d) by global warming.
More junk science? Based on what exactly? The hurricane experts say the cycle has nothing top do with GW. This is the GW nonsense I hate the most.
Maybe Oxfam is responding more than in the 1980s. In any case to say GW has anything to do with this is pure conjecture and essentially worthless.
Whereas the millions of deaths due to REAL pollution (air , water) etc. goes on and and people like you want to toss away 400+ BILLION a year on this GW wet dream?
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Nov 26 2007, 12:36 PM)
Closer to the topic of this thread Oxfam, one of the major NGOs responding to humanitarian crises, has published a report indicating the weather related disasters have quadrupled over the last 2 decades. (See Oxfam Article).
QUOTE
From an average of 120 disasters a year in the early 1980s, there are now as many as 500, with Oxfam attributing the rise to unpredictable weather conditions cause(d) by global warming.
Was this a peer reviewed study? Somehow I doubt it.
Oxfam is concerned with coming up to solutions to world famine, not weather events. In fact, Oxfam should stick with developing programs to feed the hungry.
The latest IPCC reports even acknowledges that world food output could rise with a rise of 3 degrees Celsius.
QUOTE
(Amlord)
Oxfam is concerned with coming up to solutions to world famine, not weather events. In fact, Oxfam should stick with developing programs to feed the hungry.
The latest IPCC reports even acknowledges that world food output could rise with a rise of 3 degrees Celsius.
Oxfam is concerned with coming up to solutions to world famine, not weather events. In fact, Oxfam should stick with developing programs to feed the hungry.
The latest IPCC reports even acknowledges that world food output could rise with a rise of 3 degrees Celsius.
Reports like this one are within the scope of Oxfam's activities. (See What we do. at Oxfam.org).
QUOTE
Research and lobbying: Oxfam’s experience of the real issues confronting poor people is linked to high-level research and lobbying. We aim to change international policies and practices in ways to ensure that poor people have the rights and opportunities they need to improve and control their lives.
As for your statement about the IPCC, temperature increases, and food; the emphasis should be on the could. The IPCC Working Group II discussed this contentious issue with emphasis on food crop response to raised levels of CO2 not temperature. Any positive benefit supplied by raised levels of CO2 have to be tempered by the availability of water, heat induced drying, and the impact on crops of severe weather events. (See Page 280 and beyond of this portion of the Woring Group II report).
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Nov 26 2007, 12:36 PM)
A day or 2 ago I posted a response to Net2007 but it got lost somewhere. After complimenting the work he put into his post on the loss of world forests, I disagreed with his conclusion that their loss was a major factor thus far in the rise of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. I cited the following evidence from a 2 year old Realclimate.org article. (See CO2 and Human Activity).
For a somewhat less technical argument on the changing ratios of the carbon isotopes C12, C13, and C14 in the atmosphere, see the References Letter in Physics Today.
I went on to add that no one was blaming George Bush or heavy industry for GW but we were attacking them for placing road blocks in the war of comprehensive addressing the issue.
Closer to the topic of this thread Oxfam, one of the major NGOs responding to humanitarian crises, has published a report indicating the weather related disasters have quadrupled over the last 2 decades. (See Oxfam Article).
QUOTE
What about the land biosphere? We know that deforestation has contributed to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Yet because carbon needs to be conserved, observations of the carbon increase in the atmosphere and the oceans combined with estimates of fossil fuel burning tell us that deforestation has been largely compensated by enhanced growth by the land biosphere. For example, during 1980 to 1999, fossil fuel burning was 117±5 PgC, and the carbon increase in the atmosphere and the oceans were 65±1 and 37±8 PgC, respectively. Thus that leaves 15±9 PgC that has been taken up by the land. This 15±9 PgC includes deforestation (and other land-use changes) which reduced the land biosphere by 24±12 PgC, and an additional land uptake of 39±18 PgC in response to elevated CO2 and climate changes (Sabine et al. 2004). Here also there is some uncertainty about the exact amount, but there is no uncertainty that the land biosphere has taken up a quantity of CO2 that is roughly equivalent to the deforestation.
For a somewhat less technical argument on the changing ratios of the carbon isotopes C12, C13, and C14 in the atmosphere, see the References Letter in Physics Today.
QUOTE
Parallel decline of the 14C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. Strictly speaking, this is the "Suess effect," first observed, and correctly interpreted, by Hans Suess of the University of California, San Diego, in the early 1950s. The Suess effect occurs because fossil fuels do not contain 14C precisely because they are fossil—much older than 10 half-lives of 14C.
Parallel decline of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This phenomenon is linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon, which is strongly depleted in 13C.
Parallel decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere, which is the inescapable signature of an oxidation of carbon. If ocean warming were responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2.
Parallel decline of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2. This phenomenon is linked to the fact that fossil fuels, forests, and soil carbon come from photosynthetic carbon, which is strongly depleted in 13C.
Parallel decline in the oxygen concentration of the atmosphere, which is the inescapable signature of an oxidation of carbon. If ocean warming were responsible for the CO2 increase, we should also observe an increase in atmospheric O2.
I went on to add that no one was blaming George Bush or heavy industry for GW but we were attacking them for placing road blocks in the war of comprehensive addressing the issue.
Closer to the topic of this thread Oxfam, one of the major NGOs responding to humanitarian crises, has published a report indicating the weather related disasters have quadrupled over the last 2 decades. (See Oxfam Article).
QUOTE
From an average of 120 disasters a year in the early 1980s, there are now as many as 500, with Oxfam attributing the rise to unpredictable weather conditions cause(d) by global warming.
Well it is indeed a combination of factors, and I'm not saying the effect of big industry should be ignored, only that global warming is a problem that has much broader causes than many would expect. My specific point of view on big industry is that it certainly isn't helping. We have the ability to render fossil fuel consumption for the purposes of energy production obsolete, and thats based on technologies that we already understand. Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and even Nuclear power all make more sense than what we are doing today, so I really don't see why we couldn't replace the oil industry in one presidency with theses technologies. We are taking baby steps of course, but its possible things are moving as slow as they are because of the money associated with fossil fuel consumption. Its probably safe to say our gouvernment has been in bed with big industry for almost a century now, just like nearly every other nation.
I actually agree with you on most of what you say about this issue. I'm not convinced the weather patterns are changed however for one reason. There is certainly a noticeable trend occurring but whether or not this new trend is permanent is the real question. Weather patterns have a habit of fluctuating decade by decade so its kind of hard to say at this point if global warming is the cause of this recent increase of severe weather events. That being said, I don't take any of this lightly. This is the place we call home and I think we should be prepared for the worst. Like I said before, I believe we should not try and prevent climate change necessarily, but eliminate the human fingerprint on this planet as much as we possibly can so that we are not interfering with earths natural cycle.
My gut tells me if we can put a man on the moon, or we can cause massive global extinction on a scale that hasn't been seen since the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, then there is no reason we couldn't change the very climate that sustains us. So I wouldn't be at all surprised if 50 years from now the weather patterns are even worse than they are today, I really wouldn't. If weather patterns are destine to get worse due to global warming then proving Global warming is the result of human activity would be easier than proving the weather patterns developing today are our fault, and to me the idea that we are partially or even mostly responsible for climate change seems very feasible.
You said here...........
I went on to add that no one was blaming George Bush or heavy industry for GW but we were attacking them for placing road blocks in the war of comprehensive addressing the issue.
Well thats good because anyone who is serious about this problem (and I do believe it is a problem) knows that this is an issue that goes far beyond this president, and far beyond this country in fact. I believe China is now exceeding us in greenhouse gas emissions........
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1900932.htm
I haven't read all of your post here but I do believe certain people and politicians do more finger pointing, than anything helpful. I point fingers as well but I do it to almost everyone. The very way our society is structured makes nearly all of us a contributor to this problem in way or another. Our gouvernment as a whole dating back to the early 1900's is guilty of not doing enough to make changes. Since I haven't read some of your post here, if your not pointing fingers thats a good thing, although our politicians are often guilty of this sort of thing. It helps campaigns to point at the shortcomings of others. It takes attention away from them personally while drawing negative attention to others. Personally if I were lets say running for president, Id blame our gouvernment in general, as well as other governments, not certain parties or politicians. Ive seen some singling out in a number of occasions about this issue , and I wish that wasn't the case.
To conclude this, we are making notable progress but its just so slow, however some other nations are taking steps in the wrong direction if anything. Like one of our nearest neighbors Cuba, they drive the same types of cars that Americans drove in the 70's. Many people in some nations remain uneducated about this problem, while those of power who are educated in many cases just don't take this near seriously enough, but if things continue to get worse I'm sure that will change. I wish we didn't have to wait for things to get worse but a part of me feels we will end up making the biggest changes globally, after an unprecedented global disaster occurs. Like a new Ice age for example.
QUOTE
Net
Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and even Nuclear power all make more sense than what we are doing today, so I really don't see why we couldn't replace the oil industry in one presidency with theses technologies
Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and even Nuclear power all make more sense than what we are doing today, so I really don't see why we couldn't replace the oil industry in one presidency with theses technologies
You have to be kidding. Even if you spent trillions this could never happen. Wind and geothermal are not cost competitive and nuclear plants take decades.
To date I think the idiots in Congress have approved 1-2 new nuke plants. They get protested, tossed around by NIMBY locals and 2 decades later – maybe you get a plant.
No we are stuck with oil and gas for the foreseeable future and we need to drill for more of our own rather than make Saudia Arabia rich.
Don’t hold your breath
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 28 2007, 06:04 PM)
QUOTE
Net
Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and even Nuclear power all make more sense than what we are doing today, so I really don't see why we couldn't replace the oil industry in one presidency with theses technologies
Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and even Nuclear power all make more sense than what we are doing today, so I really don't see why we couldn't replace the oil industry in one presidency with theses technologies
You have to be kidding. Even if you spent trillions this could never happen. Wind and geothermal are not cost competitive and nuclear plants take decades.
To date I think the idiots in Congress have approved 1-2 new nuke plants. They get protested, tossed around by NIMBY locals and 2 decades later – maybe you get a plant.
No we are stuck with oil and gas for the foreseeable future and we need to drill for more of our own rather than make Saudia Arabia rich.
Don’t hold your breath
Do I think renewable energy could replace the fossil fuel industry in one presidency? Perhaps, but its not likely. I think it could be done however it would take a massive change in direction similar to what we had to do to put a man on the moon in less than 10 years. Now do I honestly think it will happen that way? Probably not, however I do believe the fossil fuel industry will slowly but surely be replaced in the decades to come. I'm confident that in 30 years we will be getting over half our energy from renewable sources. Maybe even sooner.
These are real and viable options, and the oil industry will become increasingly cost ineffective as time goes on. We are depleting all the easily obtainable oil reservoirs, forcing us to drill at sea, and import foreign oil. Being the reason nations like Russia are interested in obtaining land in Antarctica of all places. Antarctica once had a warm climate, and complex ecosystem, but because of the conditions their today the oil reservoirs remain untapped. We are having to go though increasingly elaborate measures just to keep up with demand. Now that being said are renewable energy sources more dependable and cost effective? Absolutely because they are constant and will always be there, and for the most part have little or no negative impact on this planet.
The following is from WIKI, here it says that Icelands Renewable energy "mostly geothermal" provides over 70% of the nation's primary energy and the country expects to be 100% energy-independent by 2050.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#_note-10
QUOTE
Iceland is the fifth most productive country in the world based on GDP per capita at purchasing power parity. It is also ranked first on the 2007 United Nations Human Development Index. In 2007, it was named the best place to live in the world, narrowly beating Norway by the United Nations Human Development Index. Renewable energy provides over 70% of the nation's primary energy and the country expects to be energy-independent by 2050.
Things like wind turbines are particuarly interesting for us given the constant winds in the southwest and in central America, and they are very low maintenance.
Solar technology is improving by the year, as well as battery technolegy and its only a matter of time that they replace the fossil fuel industry in America, Im more than confident I will see that in my lifetime.
You and I seem to agree very much on this war, its good to see the support has not dwindled away to nothing. However I've never particuarly agreed with many conservatives in regards to renewable energy. Its good to see the wide array of opinions in any case.
You and I seem to agree very much on this war, its good to see the support has not dwindled away to nothing. However I've never particuarly agreed with many conservatives in regards to renewable energy. Its good to see the wide array of opinions in any case.
I love renewable energy. I am a pragmatist though. You will not be powering your car or warming your home from renewable energy soon. Our best hope to do something quickly is massive nuclear power plant construction. But inertia in the government at all levels means it will take decades.
We do not have nearly the hydro power that Iceland has although I believe all sources should be explored vigorously the government has to be the prime mover in the early “mony losing” stages – and the US had an incredibly bad track record in this area.
I have written to Congress asking for an update – no response. Their web site is poor – at best.
I am afraid it will be many decades before we even have a chance at energy independence – at best.
I enjoy your posts on the war. Good stuff.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 15 2007, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 13 2007, 08:10 AM)
You lost me sir. LOOK at your graph and show me the worldwide “hockey stick” increase in temperatures due to GW? LOL.
As anybody who is remotely familiar with GW knows the hockey stick graph is not based on the last 130 years. It is generally based on the last two thousand years.
IMAGE
This should supply additional interpretive information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Ye..._Comparison.png
You guys realize the "hockey stick" graph has been pretty much invalidated right? For starters, it had three problems with it:
1. Mann was using incomplete data, and just filled in what he didn't have.
2. He was using double sets of some portions of the data
3. The model he was using made a "hockey stick" out of any data including random numbers.
When the controversy was brought to light, Mann refused to release his data for review until a congressional investigation was launched in response to a Wall Street Journal article pointing out the flaws in Mann's research. This is the kind of stuff you end up with as you trust "consensus science." Mann's study is now not even taken seriously by most scientists who actually believe in humans as the cause of global warming. Just look up the hockey stick controversy on wikipedia for more information.
QUOTE
Verification may take several forms. I come from medicine, where the gold standard is the randomized double-blind study, which has been the paradigm of medical research since the 1940s.
In that vein, let me tell you a story. It's 1991, I am flying home from Germany, sitting next to a man who is almost in tears, he is so upset. He's a physician involved in an FDA study of a new drug. It's a double-blind study involving four separate teams---one plans the study, another administers the drug to patients, a third assesses the effect on patients, and a fourth analyzes results. The teams do not know each other, and are prohibited from personal contact of any sort, on peril of contaminating the results. This man had been sitting in the Frankfurt airport, innocently chatting with another man, when they discovered to their mutual horror they are on two different teams studying the same drug. They were required to report their encounter to the FDA. And my companion was now waiting to see if the FDA would declare their multi-year, multi-million dollar study invalid because of this chance contact.
For a person with a medical background, accustomed to this degree of rigor in research, the protocols of climate science appear considerably more relaxed. In climate science, it's permissible for raw data to be "touched," or modified, by many hands. Gaps in temperature and proxy records are filled in. Suspect values are deleted because a scientist deems them erroneous. A researcher may elect to use parts of existing records, ignoring other parts. But the fact that the data has been modified in so many ways inevitably raises the question of whether the results of a given study are wholly or partially caused by the modifications themselves.
By the same token, any verification of the study by investigators with whom the researcher had a professional relationship-people with whom, for example, he had published papers in the past, would not be accepted. That's peer review by pals, and it's unavoidably biased. Yet these issues are central to the now-familiar story of the "Hockeystick graph" and the debate surrounding it.
In that vein, let me tell you a story. It's 1991, I am flying home from Germany, sitting next to a man who is almost in tears, he is so upset. He's a physician involved in an FDA study of a new drug. It's a double-blind study involving four separate teams---one plans the study, another administers the drug to patients, a third assesses the effect on patients, and a fourth analyzes results. The teams do not know each other, and are prohibited from personal contact of any sort, on peril of contaminating the results. This man had been sitting in the Frankfurt airport, innocently chatting with another man, when they discovered to their mutual horror they are on two different teams studying the same drug. They were required to report their encounter to the FDA. And my companion was now waiting to see if the FDA would declare their multi-year, multi-million dollar study invalid because of this chance contact.
For a person with a medical background, accustomed to this degree of rigor in research, the protocols of climate science appear considerably more relaxed. In climate science, it's permissible for raw data to be "touched," or modified, by many hands. Gaps in temperature and proxy records are filled in. Suspect values are deleted because a scientist deems them erroneous. A researcher may elect to use parts of existing records, ignoring other parts. But the fact that the data has been modified in so many ways inevitably raises the question of whether the results of a given study are wholly or partially caused by the modifications themselves.
By the same token, any verification of the study by investigators with whom the researcher had a professional relationship-people with whom, for example, he had published papers in the past, would not be accepted. That's peer review by pals, and it's unavoidably biased. Yet these issues are central to the now-familiar story of the "Hockeystick graph" and the debate surrounding it.
-Michael Crichton's senate testimony and can be found on his website
This is a giant problem with the global warming debate. The way they do medical studies is extremely expensive; however, it is necessary to have that kind of accuracy if you actually think global warming is provable rather than remaining where it is today. A land of "true believers" where everyone else is labeled a denier where their motives are questioned. Virtually every scientist that does not believe in global warming is accused of being in the pockets of big oil, while nobody questions the motives of the GW crowd. There are a lot of dollars being thrown their way to conduct studies and make reports that would not be there if they produced results that wouldn't affirm GW. I'm not saying either side is particularly biased or unbiased, I just think it's an interesting observation to consider. I would much rather see the 400+ billion dollars that Ted keeps quoting actually be used toward funding proper research rather than being thrown in the trash with the Kyoto protocol.
The global warming models that the UN and others use to predict catastrophe need to be looked at much more skeptically. Relying too much on the sky is falling conclusions that Al Gore come to or even the much more moderate conclusions of some of the other models still suffer from several flaws. The first being that I haven't heard of any climate change model that has been able to actually reproduce the effects of the last century. This point has been brought up several times, but I don't think it has been properly addressed by the humans=GW side. The only way to test the accuracy of a model that predicts the future is to wait and see what happens, but we don't really have that kind of time, so it baffles me that these models are though of as fact when they can't reproduce the past.
A second problem with the computer models that predict the future is that the future cannot be reliably predicted because there is no evidence to suggest that the world of the future will be anything like the world of today. If we went back to 1900 and tried to predict what our problems would be based on today's population, we would be concerned where to put all the horse manure. Cars were an extremely new technology at the time only adopted primarily as toys, and the airplane wasn't even invented yet. Climate models that are predicting what they think will happen 100 years from now are downright irresponsible from that respect alone, not to mention how extremely complex the earth is. For all we know, two years from now someone could discover how to actually make a fusion reactor and harness a preposterous amount of energy that could quickly replace all of our coal, oil, and natural gas reactors.
If we actually want to be making policy decisions based on GW theory, there are a lot of questions that should still be answered before we start spending lots of money doing stupid things like joining the kyoto treaty. The US government is currently heavily subsidizing ethanol for marginal reductions in CO2 emissions when you look at the whole process. Even if we converted all the corn in the United States into ethanol (as in, nobody would eat any corn, we wouldn't eat most of the animals that are fed using corn feed... etc.) we would only be replacing something like under 20% of the oil used in this country. Even without joining in on the Kyoto protocol, our country is throwing out money on policies that are doomed to fail based on inconclusive data on the unproven theory of global warming. The money needs to be put towards researching real solutions like nuclear plants and fusion power and into more properly conducted studies which will at least help us stop sending so much money to the middle east, rather than ethanol and prius' (because everyone knows tons of battery acid is great for the environment).
QUOTE
When the controversy was brought to light, Mann refused to release his data for review until a congressional investigation was launched in response to a Wall Street Journal article pointing out the flaws in Mann's research. This is the kind of stuff you end up with as you trust "consensus science." Mann's study is now not even taken seriously by most scientists who actually believe in humans as the cause of global warming. Just look up the hockey stick controversy on wikipedia for more information
I agree but there are still pleanty of people who still believe like the Real Climate folks. This piece of crap is very much alive – see here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?s=hoc...chdatabase=site
And I have posted Crichton. He is dismissed as a “non believer” activist. Thanks for ths input. Good to see that nmot everyone buys the "GW is mans fault" peroaganda.
QUOTE(als814 @ Nov 29 2007, 06:45 PM)
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 15 2007, 06:17 PM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 13 2007, 08:10 AM)
You lost me sir. LOOK at your graph and show me the worldwide “hockey stick” increase in temperatures due to GW? LOL.
As anybody who is remotely familiar with GW knows the hockey stick graph is not based on the last 130 years. It is generally based on the last two thousand years.
IMAGE
This should supply additional interpretive information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Ye..._Comparison.png
You guys realize the "hockey stick" graph has been pretty much invalidated right? For starters, it had three problems with it:
1. Mann was using incomplete data, and just filled in what he didn't have.
2. He was using double sets of some portions of the data
3. The model he was using made a "hockey stick" out of any data including random numbers.
When the controversy was brought to light, Mann refused to release his data for review until a congressional investigation was launched in response to a Wall Street Journal article pointing out the flaws in Mann's research. This is the kind of stuff you end up with as you trust "consensus science." Mann's study is now not even taken seriously by most scientists who actually believe in humans as the cause of global warming. Just look up the hockey stick controversy on wikipedia for more information.
Yeah, I think the hockey stick model holds up although too much emphasis may have been put on it by the IPCC. AGW does not require the hockey stick to make its case. It simply needs to show that man produced carbon gasses is the principal driver in modern times for temperature rise. The hockey stick model also doesn't depend on the original study done by Mann back in 1998 and 1999 but now has multiple studies to support it. I have already offered a multiple study graph. Perhaps it will help if I offer it again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Ye..._Comparison.png
Here the site for professional climatologists, RealClimate, disposes of most of the skepticism surrounding the hockey stick rendoring.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...e-hockey-stick/
As for Mr. Crichton, using a science fiction writer as a source for debunking AGW seems kind of nonserious. There are enough scientific AGW deniers like Allegre and Lindzen to provide a more credible debunking, even if they have had their views thoroughly discredited by their scientific colleagues. Funny how the first 40 links you get on google are filled with the hysterical conspiracy stuff. Apparently scientists throughout the world are part of a global conspiracy to use a hoax GW scare as a stalking horse for the New World Order. You read a lot of that nonsense. Kind of reminds me of the 911 conspiracy stuff.
QUOTE(net2007 @ Nov 28 2007, 07:30 PM)
These are real and viable options, and the oil industry will become increasingly cost ineffective as time goes on. We are depleting all the easily obtainable oil reservoirs, forcing us to drill at sea, and import foreign oil. Being the reason nations like Russia are interested in obtaining land in Antarctica of all places. Antarctica once had a warm climate, and complex ecosystem, but because of the conditions their today the oil reservoirs remain untapped. We are having to go though increasingly elaborate measures just to keep up with demand. Now that being said are renewable energy sources more dependable and cost effective? Absolutely because they are constant and will always be there, and for the most part have little or no negative impact on this planet.
The following is from WIKI, here it says that Icelands Renewable energy "mostly geothermal" provides over 70% of the nation's primary energy and the country expects to be 100% energy-independent by 2050.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#_note-10
Things like wind turbines are particuarly interesting for us given the constant winds in the southwest and in central America, and they are very low maintenance.
Solar technology is improving by the year, as well as battery technolegy and its only a matter of time that they replace the fossil fuel industry in America, Im more than confident I will see that in my lifetime.
The following is from WIKI, here it says that Icelands Renewable energy "mostly geothermal" provides over 70% of the nation's primary energy and the country expects to be 100% energy-independent by 2050.........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland#_note-10
QUOTE
Iceland is the fifth most productive country in the world based on GDP per capita at purchasing power parity. It is also ranked first on the 2007 United Nations Human Development Index. In 2007, it was named the best place to live in the world, narrowly beating Norway by the United Nations Human Development Index. Renewable energy provides over 70% of the nation's primary energy and the country expects to be energy-independent by 2050.
Things like wind turbines are particuarly interesting for us given the constant winds in the southwest and in central America, and they are very low maintenance.
Solar technology is improving by the year, as well as battery technolegy and its only a matter of time that they replace the fossil fuel industry in America, Im more than confident I will see that in my lifetime.
Do you really think that the fact that Iceland gets a large percentage of its energy from renewables that this means the US could do it?
Iceland consumes about 8.2 billion KWh of electricity per year, ranking it the 84th largest consuming country in the world. AND it happens to sit on a large geothermal fault.
The US, on the other hand, consumes 3,920 billion KWh per year. It is 490 times larger. And that's just electricity. The US does generate and use slightly more geothermal power than is used in Iceland: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_geo_...ermal-power-use. That does not mean we could scale that up and fulfill all of our needs, however.
But, by your logic, because the US produces 275 billion KWh per year of hydroelectric power, than Iceland should be able to fulfill its needs with this renewable source as well. Sorry, that logic doesn't work.
The US's total primary energy consumption is the equivalent of 2,300 million tons of oil per year. By comparison, Iceland's is 2.6 million tons--#62 in the world.
All that said, moving towards renewables seems like a prudent course, but it certainly is not a short term cure-all. The vast size of the US's energy economy precludes short term solutions. The infrastructure alone (how would you pipe geothermal heat to millions of homes?) makes any change daunting so say the least.
QUOTE(Dingo)
As for Mr. Crichton, using a science fiction writer as a source for debunking AGW seems kind of nonserious. There are enough scientific AGW deniers like Allegre and Lindzen to provide a more credible debunking, even if they have had their views thoroughly discredited by their scientific colleagues. Funny how the first 40 links you get on google are filled with the hysterical conspiracy stuff. Apparently scientists throughout the world are part of a global conspiracy to use a hoax GW scare as a stalking horse for the New World Order. You read a lot of that nonsense. Kind of reminds me of the 911 conspiracy stuff.
Yes, you see, only those in the know can be trusted. Anyone who tries to use common sense and researches the issue themselves should be laughed at or denigrated until they leave. Anyone outside of the consensus opinion should be ridiculed with the ad hominem title of Denier or Skeptic.
QUOTE
The hockey stick model also doesn't depend on the original study done by Mann back in 1998 and 1999 but now has multiple studies to support it. I have already offered a multiple study graph. Perhaps it will help if I offer it again.
Yes and the reconstructed map is nearly as bad as the original. It blows off the MWP as not global simply because it does not fit in with the nifty idea that CO2 is driving (for the first time in history) the perceived temperature rise and WE are at fault. All done with models that are deeply flawed by definition.
I get it Dingo. We should just trust Real Climate - NOT
Ted, I have discussed the hockey stick graph with you and others in practically every forum that touched on global warming for the past 3 years. No amount of information defending its compilation, alternative supporting studies, nor pointing out that its validity is not critical to the major scientific conclusions regarding GW has the slightest effect on you. (Incidently, Dingo, although substantially correct in his positions, is incorrect in stating that the IPCC relied on it too much in the TAR. It was a minor part of the report.) Since you never offer any serious response to our arguments it is useless to continue to discuss the issue with you.
The difficulty in getting many ADers to intelligently discuss the science of GW is one of the reasons why I opened this and the similar 2005 forum. GW weather events are emerging from the background natural weather variability and it is going to become harder and harder for committed deniers to ignore them. With that in mind, I recommend this Article on the World's Droughts which asks some of the questions we all should be asking.
The difficulty in getting many ADers to intelligently discuss the science of GW is one of the reasons why I opened this and the similar 2005 forum. GW weather events are emerging from the background natural weather variability and it is going to become harder and harder for committed deniers to ignore them. With that in mind, I recommend this Article on the World's Droughts which asks some of the questions we all should be asking.
QUOTE
But you'd be hard-pressed to find many pieces in our major newspapers (or on the TV news) that put all (or even a number) of the extreme drought spots on the global map together in order to ask a simple question (even if its answer may prove complex indeed): Do they have anything in common? And if so, what? And if so, what then? To find even tentative answers to such questions you have to leave the mainstream. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, for example, interviewed paleontologist and author of The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change, Tim Flannery recently on the topic of a "world on fire." Flannery offered the following observation:
"It's not just the Southeast of the United States. Europe has had its great droughts and water shortages. Australia is in the grip of a drought that's almost unbelievable in its ferocity. Again, this is a global picture. We're just getting much less usable water than we did a decade or two or three decades ago. It's a sort of thing again that the climate models are predicting. In terms of the floods, again we see the same thing. You know, a warmer atmosphere is just a more energetic atmosphere. So if you ask me about a single flood event or a single fire event, it's really hard to make the connection, but take the bigger picture and you can see very clearly what's happening."
I know answers to the "and then" question are not easy or necessarily simple. But if drought -- or call it "desertification" -- becomes more widespread, more common in heavily populated parts of the globe already bursting at the seams (and with more people arriving daily), if whole regions no longer have the necessary water, how many trails of tears, how many of those mass migrations or civilizational collapses are possible? How much burning and suffering and misery are we likely to experience? And what then?
"It's not just the Southeast of the United States. Europe has had its great droughts and water shortages. Australia is in the grip of a drought that's almost unbelievable in its ferocity. Again, this is a global picture. We're just getting much less usable water than we did a decade or two or three decades ago. It's a sort of thing again that the climate models are predicting. In terms of the floods, again we see the same thing. You know, a warmer atmosphere is just a more energetic atmosphere. So if you ask me about a single flood event or a single fire event, it's really hard to make the connection, but take the bigger picture and you can see very clearly what's happening."
I know answers to the "and then" question are not easy or necessarily simple. But if drought -- or call it "desertification" -- becomes more widespread, more common in heavily populated parts of the globe already bursting at the seams (and with more people arriving daily), if whole regions no longer have the necessary water, how many trails of tears, how many of those mass migrations or civilizational collapses are possible? How much burning and suffering and misery are we likely to experience? And what then?
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 30 2007, 04:39 AM)
Yeah, I think the hockey stick model holds up although too much emphasis may have been put on it by the IPCC. AGW does not require the hockey stick to make its case. It simply needs to show that man produced carbon gasses is the principal driver in modern times for temperature rise. The hockey stick model also doesn't depend on the original study done by Mann back in 1998 and 1999 but now has multiple studies to support it. I have already offered a multiple study graph. Perhaps it will help if I offer it again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Ye..._Comparison.png
Here the site for professional climatologists, RealClimate, disposes of most of the skepticism surrounding the hockey stick rendoring.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...e-hockey-stick/
As for Mr. Crichton, using a science fiction writer as a source for debunking AGW seems kind of nonserious. There are enough scientific AGW deniers like Allegre and Lindzen to provide a more credible debunking, even if they have had their views thoroughly discredited by their scientific colleagues. Funny how the first 40 links you get on google are filled with the hysterical conspiracy stuff. Apparently scientists throughout the world are part of a global conspiracy to use a hoax GW scare as a stalking horse for the New World Order. You read a lot of that nonsense. Kind of reminds me of the 911 conspiracy stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Ye..._Comparison.png
Here the site for professional climatologists, RealClimate, disposes of most of the skepticism surrounding the hockey stick rendoring.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...e-hockey-stick/
As for Mr. Crichton, using a science fiction writer as a source for debunking AGW seems kind of nonserious. There are enough scientific AGW deniers like Allegre and Lindzen to provide a more credible debunking, even if they have had their views thoroughly discredited by their scientific colleagues. Funny how the first 40 links you get on google are filled with the hysterical conspiracy stuff. Apparently scientists throughout the world are part of a global conspiracy to use a hoax GW scare as a stalking horse for the New World Order. You read a lot of that nonsense. Kind of reminds me of the 911 conspiracy stuff.
Considering Mann is a major contributor to RealClimate, I doubt that is going to be the source for unbiased analysis of the hockey stick graph. Although Mann supposedly is a professor at Penn State now, so I should see if I can go talk to him.
As for Michael Crichton, I was using his quote to illustrate the differences between medical studies and climate studies. While I could have used his conclusions for the purpose of debunking global warming, I could just as easily use real scientists like Peter Huber and many others who disagree with AGW.
Drought is not a new problem. If a study has been done compiling historical world wide drought patterns and comparing them to what we see today, I'd like to see it.
Australia is drought prone. Anyone that points to a drought in Australia as evidence of anything global has another thing coming.
Drought in the United States is relatively common and certainly not new. The Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s affected 70% of the country. The 1950s drought caused crop yields to drop by 50% (contrast to this year's drought which caused 15-30% lower crop yields according to TedN5's article).
Droughts similar to the 1950s one occur once or twice every century according to the proxy data. The drought of the late 1980s was the first since the 1950s.
Drought in the Mediterranean is also common historically. Historically, rainfall in much of that region is boom or bust.
In short, this article tells us nothing at all.
Australia is drought prone. Anyone that points to a drought in Australia as evidence of anything global has another thing coming.
Drought in the United States is relatively common and certainly not new. The Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s affected 70% of the country. The 1950s drought caused crop yields to drop by 50% (contrast to this year's drought which caused 15-30% lower crop yields according to TedN5's article).
Droughts similar to the 1950s one occur once or twice every century according to the proxy data. The drought of the late 1980s was the first since the 1950s.
Drought in the Mediterranean is also common historically. Historically, rainfall in much of that region is boom or bust.
In short, this article tells us nothing at all.
QUOTE
Ted, I have discussed the hockey stick graph with you and others in practically every forum that touched on global warming for the past 3 years. No amount of information defending its compilation, alternative supporting studies, nor pointing out that its validity is not critical to the major scientific conclusions regarding GW has the slightest effect on you. (Incidently, Dingo, although substantially correct in his positions, is incorrect in stating that the IPCC relied on it too much in the TAR. It was a minor part of the report.) Since you never offer any serious response to our arguments it is useless to continue to discuss the issue with you.
Yes and I still don’t agree and its not just me as I have posted. We know Mann lied and then hid the data and tried to cover himself and I still believe the MWP was global.
And even if I DID agree and even if were all true we clearly cannot stop the rice in CO2 so I will always be against the 400 + Billion a year cost that you and others would have us throw away.
And yes I an sure that all weather events, weather related to El Nino, La Nina or just random events will be now assigned to GW by your crowd – with little support.
Yes we will see the fall of GW ideas as the predictions do not come true on temperature rise and this is why they are now trying to ascribe anything out of the ordinary to GW. Show me a model that can reliably predict this please. And the controversy about the graph is far from settled.
“A subsequent investigation, undertaken at the request of Republican Senator Joe Barton and headed by prominent statistics professor Edward Wegman at George Mason University,[8] supported the statistical criticisms by McKitrick and McIntyre, saying "It is not clear that Dr. Mann and his associates even realized that their methodology was faulty at the time of writing the [Mann] paper. We found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling." and "We have been to Michael Mann’s University of Virginia website and downloaded the materials there. Unfortunately, we did not find adequate material to reproduce the MBH98 materials. We have been able to reproduce the results of McIntyre and McKitrick"[9]
The subject of the meaning and impact of the issue is still being debated in multiple blogs on the Internet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick
"The 2007 Atlantic Hurricane season did not meet the hyperactive expectations of the storm pontificators. This is good news, just like it was last year. With the breathless media coverage prior to the 2006 and 2007 seasons predicting catastrophic swarms of hurricanes potentially enhanced by global warming a la Katrina, there is currently plenty of twisting in the wind to explain away the hyperbolic projections. The predominant refrain mentions something about “being lucky” and having “escaped” the storms, and “just wait for next year”.
When combined, the 2006 and 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Seasons are the least active since 1993 and 1994. When compared with the active period of 1995-2005 average, 2006 and 2007 hurricane energy was less than half of that previous 10 year average. The most recent active period of Atlantic hurricane activity began in 1995, but has been decidedly less active during the previous two seasons.
When combined, the Eastern Pacific and the North Atlantic, which typically play opposite tunes when it comes to yearly activity (b/c of El Nino), brushed climatology aside and together managed the lowest output since 1977. In fact, the average lifespan of the 2007 Atlantic storms was the shortest since 1977 at just over two days. This means that the storms were weak and short-lived, with a few obvious exceptions. "
http://www.climateaudit.org/
Does a Global Temperature Exist?
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/...globaltemp.html
Many actually argue tha any warming caused by increases in Methane and CO2 have actually saved us from another Ice Age.
“Matthews argues here that global warming has actually saved mankind. Criticizing Sir David Attenborough and Al Gore about their global warming awareness campaigns, he continues: " Left to its own devices, our planet would have long since reverted to its preferred state: a frigid Ice Age".
" Left to its own devices, our planet would have long since reverted to
its preferred state of the last 40 million years: a frigid Ice Age.
Fortunately, a new climatic influence kicked in around 8,000 years ago
to stop the Ice Age from reasserting itself. It's called H. sapiens. By
indulging in the sinful practices of crop-planting, tree-clearing and
biomass-burning, we have boosted levels of greenhouse gases and
darkened the surface of our planet, thus increasing the amount of
sunlight trapped by the Earth.Of course, we should take care not to over-egg things - but so should
the Eco-doomsters. Have we changed the planet? You bet. And it's all
the better for it."
http://darkfalafel.blogspot.com/2007/03/gl...-is-it-lie.html
“MYTH : Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.”
MYTH : Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.
QUOTE
(Amlord)
Drought is not a new problem. If a study has been done compiling historical world wide drought patterns and comparing them to what we see today, I'd like to see it.
Drought is not a new problem. If a study has been done compiling historical world wide drought patterns and comparing them to what we see today, I'd like to see it.
Of course it's not new. It has led to the collapse of civilizations! However, it's not unreasonable to wonder if the world wide pattern of droughts isn't the beginning of the IPCC's prediction?
QUOTE
An increase of droughts over low latitudes and mid-latitude continental interiors in summer is likely (WGI AR4, Summary for
Policymakers, Table SPM.2), but sensitive to model land-surface formulation. Projections for the 2090s made by Burke et al.
(2006), using the HadCM3 GCM and the SRES A2 scenario, show regions of strong wetting and drying with a net overall
global drying trend. For example, the proportion of the land surface in extreme drought, globally, is predicted to increase by
the (a) factor of 10 to 30; from 1-3%for the present day to 30%by the 2090s.
(See IPCC WG2 Report, page 187).Policymakers, Table SPM.2), but sensitive to model land-surface formulation. Projections for the 2090s made by Burke et al.
(2006), using the HadCM3 GCM and the SRES A2 scenario, show regions of strong wetting and drying with a net overall
global drying trend. For example, the proportion of the land surface in extreme drought, globally, is predicted to increase by
the (a) factor of 10 to 30; from 1-3%for the present day to 30%by the 2090s.
Isn't it also odd that this pattern is accompanied by numerous record rainfall events elsewhere, an increase in storm intensity, wide spread glacier and sea ice melting, and substantially higher arctic temperatures? All of these fall within the pattern suggested by the IPCC. Some of these droughts will probably be relieved temporarily but we should prepare for a future of more frequent and widespread drought as well as other extreme weather events.
Australia is a special case. Here is What WG2 had to say about Australia (and New Zeland).
QUOTE(als814 @ Nov 30 2007, 10:54 AM)
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 30 2007, 04:39 AM)
Yeah, I think the hockey stick model holds up although too much emphasis may have been put on it by the IPCC. AGW does not require the hockey stick to make its case. It simply needs to show that man produced carbon gasses is the principal driver in modern times for temperature rise. The hockey stick model also doesn't depend on the original study done by Mann back in 1998 and 1999 but now has multiple studies to support it. I have already offered a multiple study graph. Perhaps it will help if I offer it again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Ye..._Comparison.png
Here the site for professional climatologists, RealClimate, disposes of most of the skepticism surrounding the hockey stick rendoring.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...e-hockey-stick/
As for Mr. Crichton, using a science fiction writer as a source for debunking AGW seems kind of nonserious. There are enough scientific AGW deniers like Allegre and Lindzen to provide a more credible debunking, even if they have had their views thoroughly discredited by their scientific colleagues. Funny how the first 40 links you get on google are filled with the hysterical conspiracy stuff. Apparently scientists throughout the world are part of a global conspiracy to use a hoax GW scare as a stalking horse for the New World Order. You read a lot of that nonsense. Kind of reminds me of the 911 conspiracy stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Ye..._Comparison.png
Here the site for professional climatologists, RealClimate, disposes of most of the skepticism surrounding the hockey stick rendoring.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...e-hockey-stick/
As for Mr. Crichton, using a science fiction writer as a source for debunking AGW seems kind of nonserious. There are enough scientific AGW deniers like Allegre and Lindzen to provide a more credible debunking, even if they have had their views thoroughly discredited by their scientific colleagues. Funny how the first 40 links you get on google are filled with the hysterical conspiracy stuff. Apparently scientists throughout the world are part of a global conspiracy to use a hoax GW scare as a stalking horse for the New World Order. You read a lot of that nonsense. Kind of reminds me of the 911 conspiracy stuff.
Considering Mann is a major contributor to RealClimate, I doubt that is going to be the source for unbiased analysis of the hockey stick graph.
I think it is a bit unfair to use Mann's association with RealClimate to discount its views or accuse it of bias. It seems to be a thoroughly scientific outfit as best I can see. If you show me where it has departed from neutral science to partisan promotion of AGW I would be interested.
QUOTE
Ted. Yes we will see the fall of GW ideas as the predictions do not come true on temperature rise and this is why they are now trying to ascribe anything out of the ordinary to GW.
Ted who is THEY? The IPCC? And show me where they are ascribing everything out of the ordinary, whatever that is, to GW. It seems to me you are addicted to emotional partisanship so you throw out these grand generalities which you couldn't possibly back up which is why you keep getting refuted and then come back and recycle the same nonsense.
Just out of curiosity what is your dog in this hunt? Why are you so emotionally invested in denying what the vast majority of climatologists are asserting and reconfirming in study after study and vetted through peer review that AGW is the principal driver of temperature rise over the last 100+ years.
QUOTE
Amlord.
QUOTE
Dingo. As for Mr. Crichton, using a science fiction writer as a source for debunking AGW seems kind of nonserious. There are enough scientific AGW deniers like Allegre and Lindzen to provide a more credible debunking, even if they have had their views thoroughly discredited by their scientific colleagues. Funny how the first 40 links you get on google are filled with the hysterical conspiracy stuff. Apparently scientists throughout the world are part of a global conspiracy to use a hoax GW scare as a stalking horse for the New World Order. You read a lot of that nonsense. Kind of reminds me of the 911 conspiracy stuff.
Yes, you see, only those in the know can be trusted. Anyone who tries to use common sense and researches the issue themselves should be laughed at or denigrated until they leave. Anyone outside of the consensus opinion should be ridiculed with the ad hominem title of Denier or Skeptic.I find that contemptuous dismissal or outright accusations of fraud occur on both sides of the aisle. It just happens to occur more on your side. I offered google up to make that point. You are welcome to test it. Just put in the words global warming and watch the epithets and conspiracy paranoia fly from the deniers.
From my end when science overwhelmingly supports the AGW side and mainly political agendas infect the others I think denier is a fair word. As far as skeptic that seems to be a pretty neutral word and I hardly see it as a put down. I'm a skeptic about a lot of things.
QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 28 2007, 09:37 PM)
You and I seem to agree very much on this war, its good to see the support has not dwindled away to nothing. However I've never particuarly agreed with many conservatives in regards to renewable energy. Its good to see the wide array of opinions in any case.
I love renewable energy. I am a pragmatist though. You will not be powering your car or warming your home from renewable energy soon. Our best hope to do something quickly is massive nuclear power plant construction. But inertia in the government at all levels means it will take decades.
We do not have nearly the hydro power that Iceland has although I believe all sources should be explored vigorously the government has to be the prime mover in the early “mony losing” stages – and the US had an incredibly bad track record in this area.
I have written to Congress asking for an update – no response. Their web site is poor – at best.
I am afraid it will be many decades before we even have a chance at energy independence – at best.
I enjoy your posts on the war. Good stuff.
I love renewable energy. I am a pragmatist though. You will not be powering your car or warming your home from renewable energy soon. Our best hope to do something quickly is massive nuclear power plant construction. But inertia in the government at all levels means it will take decades.
We do not have nearly the hydro power that Iceland has although I believe all sources should be explored vigorously the government has to be the prime mover in the early “mony losing” stages – and the US had an incredibly bad track record in this area.
I have written to Congress asking for an update – no response. Their web site is poor – at best.
I am afraid it will be many decades before we even have a chance at energy independence – at best.
I enjoy your posts on the war. Good stuff.
I love renewable energy. I am a pragmatist though. You will not be powering your car or warming your home from renewable energy soon. Our best hope to do something quickly is massive nuclear power plant construction. But inertia in the government at all levels means it will take decades.
I am a pragmatist with everything just about, you have to understand though that with Global warming my stance is not at all political. I don't blame conservatives for something as profound as a global increase in temperatures, and anyone who does do that, I find to be undereducated and bias. Not to name any names here, I'm talking primarily certain politicians.
However in my research Ive seen scientist go back and fourth on the idea that human beings are the cause of climate shift, and while I'm not saying anything is certain, I strongly consider the possibility that man kind is to blame simply because the theories do make sense from a scientific standpoint, and something as profound as the health of our planet is to important not to take seriously.
My gut tells me that we as a species are strong enough to have a impact on our planet, this is largely because of how we have had a clear impact on other things globally such as Biodiversity.
I enjoy your posts on the war. Good stuff.
I appreciate that, you too by the way. We need more people who take this war as seriously as Global Warming. To me both are big issues.
Western Washington has been undergoing one of those anomalous weather events that we have been discussing. It has been described as a once in 100 years event with hurricane force winds on the coasts and heavy precipitation and floods elsewhere. We had another extreme wind storm last December. Once in 100 years now seems to come more often! In any case, the storm kept my satellite link from working and kept me from posting anything. While out of commission I did run across this piece in the popular press that I think is relevant to the topic generally and the pattern of world droughts specifically. (See Article on Expanding Tropics).
QUOTE
The newest study, published Sunday in the new scientific journal Nature Geoscience, shows that by using the weather definition, the tropics are expanding toward Earth's poles more than predicted. And that means more dry weather is moving to the edges of the tropics in places like the U.S. Southwest.
QUOTE
Climate scientists have long predicted a growing tropical belt toward the end of the 21st century because of man-made global warming. But what has happened in the past quarter century is larger and more puzzling than initially predicted, said Dian Seidel, a research meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration lab in Silver Spring, Md. She is the author of the newest study.
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Dec 4 2007, 03:37 PM)
Western Washington has been undergoing one of those anomalous weather events that we have been discussing. It has been described as a once in 100 years event with hurricane force winds on the coasts and heavy precipitation and floods elsewhere. We had another extreme wind storm last December. Once in 100 years now seems to come more often! In any case, the storm kept my satellite link from working and kept me from posting anything.
Aside from the personal note (storms have this predictable effect on dish systems), this is complete nonsense. If we look at the history of severe weather in Washington state, we see:
QUOTE
2007 02/14 Severe Winter Storm, Landslides, and Mudslides 1682
2006 12/12 Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides 1671
2006 05/17 Severe Storms, Flooding, Tidal Surge, Landslides, and Mudslides 1641
2003 11/07 Severe Storms and Flooding 1499
2001 03/01 Earthquake 1361
1998 10/16 Landslide In The City Of Kelso 1255
1998 10/05 Flooding 1252
1997 07/21 Snowmelt/Flooding 1182
1997 04/02 Severe Storms/Flooding/Landslides/Mudslides 1172
1997 01/17 Severe Winter Storms/Flooding 1159
1997 01/07 Ice and Snow Storms 1152
1996 02/09 Severe Storms/Flooding 1100
1996 01/03 Storms/High Winds/Floods 1079
1994 08/02 El Nino Effects (The Salmon Industry) 1037
1993 03/04 Severe Storm, High Winds 981
1991 11/13 Fires 922
1991 03/08 High Tides, Severe Storm 896
1990 11/26 Flooding, Severe Storm 883
1990 01/18 Flooding, Severe Storm 852
1989 04/14 Heavy Rains, Flooding, Mudslides 822
1986 12/15 SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING 784
1986 07/26 SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING 769
1986 03/19 Heavy Rains, Flooding, Landslides 762
1986 02/15 SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING 757
1983 01/27 SEVERE STORMS, HIGH TIDES, FLOODING 676
1980 05/21 VOLCANIC ERUPTION, MT. ST. HELENS 623
1979 12/31 STORMS, HIGH TIDES, MUDSLIDES, FLOODING 612
1977 12/10 SEVERE STORMS,MUDSLIDES, FLOODING 545
1975 12/13 SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING 492
1974 01/25 SEVERE STORMS, SNOWMELT, FLOODING 414
1972 06/10 SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING 334
1972 03/24 Heavy Rains, Flooding 328
1972 02/01 SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING 322
1971 02/09 Heavy Rains, Melting Snow, Flooding 300
1965 05/11 Earthquake 196
1964 12/29 Heavy Rains & Flooding 185
1963 03/02 FLOODS 146
1962 10/20 SEVERE STORMS 137
1957 03/06 FLOODS 70
1956 02/25 FLOOD
2006 12/12 Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides 1671
2006 05/17 Severe Storms, Flooding, Tidal Surge, Landslides, and Mudslides 1641
2003 11/07 Severe Storms and Flooding 1499
2001 03/01 Earthquake 1361
1998 10/16 Landslide In The City Of Kelso 1255
1998 10/05 Flooding 1252
1997 07/21 Snowmelt/Flooding 1182
1997 04/02 Severe Storms/Flooding/Landslides/Mudslides 1172
1997 01/17 Severe Winter Storms/Flooding 1159
1997 01/07 Ice and Snow Storms 1152
1996 02/09 Severe Storms/Flooding 1100
1996 01/03 Storms/High Winds/Floods 1079
1994 08/02 El Nino Effects (The Salmon Industry) 1037
1993 03/04 Severe Storm, High Winds 981
1991 11/13 Fires 922
1991 03/08 High Tides, Severe Storm 896
1990 11/26 Flooding, Severe Storm 883
1990 01/18 Flooding, Severe Storm 852
1989 04/14 Heavy Rains, Flooding, Mudslides 822
1986 12/15 SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING 784
1986 07/26 SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING 769
1986 03/19 Heavy Rains, Flooding, Landslides 762
1986 02/15 SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING 757
1983 01/27 SEVERE STORMS, HIGH TIDES, FLOODING 676
1980 05/21 VOLCANIC ERUPTION, MT. ST. HELENS 623
1979 12/31 STORMS, HIGH TIDES, MUDSLIDES, FLOODING 612
1977 12/10 SEVERE STORMS,MUDSLIDES, FLOODING 545
1975 12/13 SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING 492
1974 01/25 SEVERE STORMS, SNOWMELT, FLOODING 414
1972 06/10 SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING 334
1972 03/24 Heavy Rains, Flooding 328
1972 02/01 SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING 322
1971 02/09 Heavy Rains, Melting Snow, Flooding 300
1965 05/11 Earthquake 196
1964 12/29 Heavy Rains & Flooding 185
1963 03/02 FLOODS 146
1962 10/20 SEVERE STORMS 137
1957 03/06 FLOODS 70
1956 02/25 FLOOD
Severe storms, heavy rains, and flooding are all regular occurances in Washington state. This isn't a new event ushered in by climate change, this is just a part of the region.
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Dec 4 2007, 03:37 PM)
While out of commission I did run across this piece in the popular press that I think is relevant to the topic generally and the pattern of world droughts specifically. (See Article on Expanding Tropics).
Ah yes, the tropics are expanding. Of course, accoriding to your article:
QUOTE
Climate scientists have long predicted a growing tropical belt toward the end of the 21st century because of man-made global warming. But what has happened in the past quarter century is larger and more puzzling than initially predicted, said Dian Seidel, a research meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration lab in Silver Spring, Md. She is the author of the newest study.
She said this expansion may be temporary.
Seidel said she has not determined the cause of this tropical-belt widening. While a leading suspect is global warming, other suspects include depletion in the ozone layer and changes in El Nińo, the periodic weather phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean.
She said this expansion may be temporary.
Seidel said she has not determined the cause of this tropical-belt widening. While a leading suspect is global warming, other suspects include depletion in the ozone layer and changes in El Nińo, the periodic weather phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean.
So while this expansion would fit nicely into the GW narrative, the study did not conclude that this was either permanent nor that it was caused by GW.
QUOTE
(Amlord)
Aside from the personal note (storms have this predictable effect on dish systems), this is complete nonsense. If we look at the history of severe weather in Washington state, we see:
Aside from the personal note (storms have this predictable effect on dish systems), this is complete nonsense. If we look at the history of severe weather in Washington state, we see:
You're right, the reference to my internet connection was a personal note and you should have dealt with it in that context and dropped the snide remark. Your reference to extreme weather events in Washington is not a history of such storms. It is merely a history of FEMA responses without any detail of severity and in this context is itself "complete nonsense." I lived through all of these events since 1991 and followed many previous one because of family connections to Washington. All of them, while serious to those impacted, were confined to a few watersheds or were much less intense than the recent storms or the wind storm last December. These storms hit all of Western Washington and coastal Oregon. The most recent one hit the coast with hurricane force winds blowing down a huge transmission tower while dropping several inches (feet in the mountains) of snow followed by widespread wind and intense rain. The coastal counties are still without power and I5, the main West Coast artery is still closed and probably will remain so until next week. To compare it to most of the events in your FEMA list is ludicrous!
True, Washington is subject to wind and rain, the Southwest (and to a lesser extent the Southeast) is subject to drought, Australia is drought prone, most of the Mediterranean areas have some drought problems, England get lots of rain, the Gulf and East Coast are subject to hurricanes, so is Bangladesh, much of India receives monsoon rains, and so forth. However, when all of these become more intense within a period of a few years and other areas are also impacted and some scientist have indicated that these are the kinds of trends we should expect from a warming world, then they become anecdotal evidence of climate change!
I see that the lasted version of the document calls for more than the “targets” in the previous version – which admits without saying it something I have been saying, which is that the “quotas” would never do anything meaningful to reduce CO2 output.
Do we know TEDN5 if the latest version actually mentions the CO2 elephant in the room which is China, which is now the biggest producer of CO2 and increasing rapidly – along with India?
Or do they persist in dreaming that the rest of the world will just “make up” for this?
Do we know TEDN5 if the latest version actually mentions the CO2 elephant in the room which is China, which is now the biggest producer of CO2 and increasing rapidly – along with India?
Or do they persist in dreaming that the rest of the world will just “make up” for this?
Albert Gore recently formally received the Nobel Peace Prize and gave this Acceptance Speech. Parts of it are appropriate to this forum because of the reference to recent unusual weather events. However, I am linking it primarily to show Ted that all of us concerned about climate change are well aware of the need to limit GHG releases by China and eventually reduce them.
QUOTE
We also need a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store carbon dioxide.
And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon -- with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.
The world needs an alliance -- especially of those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and Japan for the steps they've taken in recent years to meet the challenge, and the new government in Australia, which has made solving the climate crisis its first priority.
But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters -- most of all, my own country -- that will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act.
Both countries should stop using the other's behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment.
And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon -- with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.
The world needs an alliance -- especially of those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and Japan for the steps they've taken in recent years to meet the challenge, and the new government in Australia, which has made solving the climate crisis its first priority.
But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters -- most of all, my own country -- that will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act.
Both countries should stop using the other's behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment.
Why am I not surprised that Gore is in the "blame America first" crowd.
The CO2 emissions for the US in 2000 was 5.806 million metric tons. Last year, it was ... 5.877 million metric tons. A 1.1% increase over the six year time span (average annual increase 0.18% per annum). Emissions actually decreased 1.3% from 2005 to 2006.
Meanwhile, the world's carbon output is going up dramatically:
The US's carbon emission are up about 20% since 1990, almost all during the 1990s. Now, who was the Vice President back then...
Meanwhile, emissions from China are up 73%, emissions from India are up 88%, emissions from Japan (who Gore applauded) are up 15%.
Gore is a self-absorbed idiot and a hypocrite and he sugar coats what he wants to in order to frame the debate the way he wants it. A fine politician indeed.
The CO2 emissions for the US in 2000 was 5.806 million metric tons. Last year, it was ... 5.877 million metric tons. A 1.1% increase over the six year time span (average annual increase 0.18% per annum). Emissions actually decreased 1.3% from 2005 to 2006.
Meanwhile, the world's carbon output is going up dramatically:
QUOTE
"Carbon dioxide is rising at a much faster rate than before," says study co-author Christopher Field, director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology in California. "In the 1990s, CO2 emissions increased by about 1.3% per year. Since 2000, the growth rate has been 3.3% per year." The researchers calculate that global carbon-dioxide emissions were 35% higher in 2006 than in 1990.
The US's carbon emission are up about 20% since 1990, almost all during the 1990s. Now, who was the Vice President back then...
Meanwhile, emissions from China are up 73%, emissions from India are up 88%, emissions from Japan (who Gore applauded) are up 15%.
Gore is a self-absorbed idiot and a hypocrite and he sugar coats what he wants to in order to frame the debate the way he wants it. A fine politician indeed.
Amlord, it is you who is being political. You totally mis characterize Gore's speech. He was issuing a challenge to both the US and China and asking each to get serious about climate change and stop pointing at each others' failure as an excuse for doing so little. Please tell me how it was pandering when he proposed a total ban on new coal fired generation plants (that can't sequester CO2) when China is building about one a week? You are right to point out that CO2 emissions are increasing at an alarming rate and Gore would agree with you.
The China versus US debate is sterile and unproductive. We all have to get serious about reducing emissions and stopping tropical deforestation. It is in everyone's interest to do so. However, it is unfair to present one sided statistics as you did. US and other western and oil rich countries emit many times the amount of CO2 per capita as does China and developing countries. In 2004 the US emitted about 20.4 metric tons per capita versus 3.84 for China. (See this Wikipedia Chart). In recent years China's and India's emissions have grown rapidly but still remain far lower per capita than ours. It should also be borne in mind that substantial portions of their emission occur to support production serving American and European consumers. In addition, CO2 is a long lived pollutant. Paleoclimate data indicate a preindustrial level of CO2 of about 280 ppm, today it is about 375 ppm. The difference of about 95 ppm is the legacy of industrial society, the vast majority of which has been released in North America and Europe. It is, therefore, somewhat understandable why China might have the attitude of, "You first and most." This, however, is even more short sighted than the US's insistence on targets for developing economies before agreeing to our own targets because China is much more vulnerable to the consequences climate change.
The China versus US debate is sterile and unproductive. We all have to get serious about reducing emissions and stopping tropical deforestation. It is in everyone's interest to do so. However, it is unfair to present one sided statistics as you did. US and other western and oil rich countries emit many times the amount of CO2 per capita as does China and developing countries. In 2004 the US emitted about 20.4 metric tons per capita versus 3.84 for China. (See this Wikipedia Chart). In recent years China's and India's emissions have grown rapidly but still remain far lower per capita than ours. It should also be borne in mind that substantial portions of their emission occur to support production serving American and European consumers. In addition, CO2 is a long lived pollutant. Paleoclimate data indicate a preindustrial level of CO2 of about 280 ppm, today it is about 375 ppm. The difference of about 95 ppm is the legacy of industrial society, the vast majority of which has been released in North America and Europe. It is, therefore, somewhat understandable why China might have the attitude of, "You first and most." This, however, is even more short sighted than the US's insistence on targets for developing economies before agreeing to our own targets because China is much more vulnerable to the consequences climate change.
QUOTE
Albert Gore recently formally received the Nobel Peace Prize and gave this Acceptance Speech. Parts of it are appropriate to this forum because of the reference to recent unusual weather events. However, I am linking it primarily to show Ted that all of us concerned about climate change are well aware of the need to limit GHG releases by China and eventually reduce them.
Ya right yet all we harp on is the US and the IPCC quietly ignores the fact that China is building an average of one B IG CO2 belching power plant a WEEK. And if you can show me where the hell they have even hinted they will stop I will eat it. As Amlord points out the US CO2 emissions are not rising by the total is = CHINA. So the issue cannot be ducked anymore.
And the skeptics with “peer reviewed data” just keep getting blown of by the IPCC crowd.
"A small group of US experts stubbornly insist that, contrary to what the vast majority of their colleagues believe, humans may not be responsible for the warming of the planet Earth.
These experts believe that global warming is a natural phenomenon, and they point to reams of data they say supports their assertions.
These conclusions are in sharp contradiction to those of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which reached its conclusions using largely similar data
The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, doesn't show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming," wrote lead author David Douglas, a climate expert from the University of Rochester, in New York state.
"The inescapable conclusion is that human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming," Douglas wrote.
According to co-author John Christi from the University of Alabama, satellite data "and independent balloon data agree that the atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface," while greenhouse models "demand that atmospheric trend values be two to three times greater."
The journal authors "have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases."
For Fred Singer, a climatologist at the University of Virginia and another co-author, the current warming "trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep sea sediments and stalagmites . . . and published in hundreds of papers in peer reviewed journals."
The available data is ambiguous, Singer said: global temperatures, for example, rose between 1900 and 1940, well before humans began to burn the enormous quantities of hydrocarbons they do today. Then they dropped between 1940 and 1975, when the use of oil and coal increased, he said.
http://www.physorg.com/news116996704.html
Although as a former geologist I think the evidence for climate change is very convincing, I agree with the political cynicism of Ted. Because of economic reasons we will not likely see China or India significantly slowing their economic enrichment for the sake of climate change. In fact, it is conservatively estimated the number of fossil fuel motor vehicles in use throughout the world will double in the next 10 years, mainly due the surge of new drivers in those eastern economies. The environment really does not care what an individual, state, or country does, - only what the aggregate impact is. Even if you ignore the effect of rising vehicle emissions, the real significance of vehicle use is in what it implies: vastly greater numbers of affleunt people who have 1000 other ways to foster industries which themselves produce copious amounts of greenhouse gases.
I think it may be far more pragmatic for countries to begin encouraging the growth of more inland population centers in order to make it easier to later shift coastal industry and population in an orderly manner should sea level changes cause chronic coastal flooding problems sooner than later. Whether sea level changes become significant in 10 or 100 years is important only to the amount of time to prepare for its arrival, not to stop it. I personally think the notion we can reverse a trend which may have been begun 150 years ago in the next 10-50 years while at the same time maintaining the growth that triggered that change, is irrational optimism.
Some islands like Tavalu have already begun evacuating because of observable problems related to the issue of climate change and sea-level rise. I see no reason for more economically advantaged countries from creating contingency plans of their own.
I think it may be far more pragmatic for countries to begin encouraging the growth of more inland population centers in order to make it easier to later shift coastal industry and population in an orderly manner should sea level changes cause chronic coastal flooding problems sooner than later. Whether sea level changes become significant in 10 or 100 years is important only to the amount of time to prepare for its arrival, not to stop it. I personally think the notion we can reverse a trend which may have been begun 150 years ago in the next 10-50 years while at the same time maintaining the growth that triggered that change, is irrational optimism.
Some islands like Tavalu have already begun evacuating because of observable problems related to the issue of climate change and sea-level rise. I see no reason for more economically advantaged countries from creating contingency plans of their own.
QUOTE
I personally think the notion we can reverse a trend which may have been begun 150 years ago in the next 10-50 years while at the same time maintaining the growth that triggered that change, is irrational optimism.
Some islands like Tavalu have already begun evacuating because of observable problems related to the issue of climate change and sea-level rise. I see no reason for more economically advantaged countries from creating contingency plans of their own.
Some islands like Tavalu have already begun evacuating because of observable problems related to the issue of climate change and sea-level rise. I see no reason for more economically advantaged countries from creating contingency plans of their own.
Good thoughts. Certainly we could better spend the 400 + billion a year some would have us spend in a vain and useless attempt to stop the CO2 train – even if it is a major factor – which I am not convinced of yet.
We could use the money to offset, as you point out, the pending consequences. Or invest it in technologies to free us of our oil dependency.
Thanks
QUOTE
However in my research Ive seen scientist go back and fourth on the idea that human beings are the cause of climate shift, and while I'm not saying anything is certain, I strongly consider the possibility that man kind is to blame simply because the theories do make sense from a scientific standpoint, and something as profound as the health of our planet is to important not to take seriously.
It certainly is something to take seriously, but in looking at the evidence, I must conlcude that man has made no impact on GW whatsoever. Decaying leaves have more impact on CO2 than man and ALL his pollution.
I offer for consideration two vids:
Global Warming- Doomsday Called Off (45 mins)
The Global Warming Swindle (1 hr 15 mins)
Many renouned scientists, in fact, detractors of the IPCC, but STILL listed as "contributors" on the IPCC. (and the IPCC is not disengenuous? or agenda driven?)
With that said, do I think we need to get off of our addiction to oil, fossil fuels? Yes, but for entirely different reasons, none of them having to do with GW. And we don't need to subsidize other countries to accomplish UN goals of wealth redistribution, global sovereignty, and/or Al Gore's carbon offset empire.
QUOTE(RealDeal @ Dec 21 2007, 04:27 PM)
QUOTE
However in my research Ive seen scientist go back and fourth on the idea that human beings are the cause of climate shift, and while I'm not saying anything is certain, I strongly consider the possibility that man kind is to blame simply because the theories do make sense from a scientific standpoint, and something as profound as the health of our planet is to important not to take seriously.
It certainly is something to take seriously, but in looking at the evidence, I must conlcude that man has made no impact on GW whatsoever. Decaying leaves have more impact on CO2 than man and ALL his pollution.
I offer for consideration two vids:
Global Warming- Doomsday Called Off (45 mins)
The Global Warming Swindle (1 hr 15 mins)
Many renouned scientists, in fact, detractors of the IPCC, but STILL listed as "contributors" on the IPCC. (and the IPCC is not disengenuous? or agenda driven?)
With that said, do I think we need to get off of our addiction to oil, fossil fuels? Yes, but for entirely different reasons, none of them having to do with GW. And we don't need to subsidize other countries to accomplish UN goals of wealth redistribution, global sovereignty, and/or Al Gore's carbon offset empire.
Really good point newcomer, there are a number of things that have a greater impact on climate and more specifically Co2 levels than man in terms of the artificial greenhouse gases we directly emit. Where you said the following........ Decaying leaves have more impact on CO2 than man and ALL his pollution.
I actually agree with you. Ive heard some scientist say that many species of mammals in the world are responsible for breathing out more Co2 than all our power plants and cars combined. Leaf decay would be a more significant factor as well, which has actually been the focus of my research.
I believe humans are responsible for this otherwise indescribable increase in Co2 levels, but I think we are looking for answers in the wrong places. Now to the credit of TEDN5 I do believe greenhouse gas emissions are a problem, and an unnecessary problem at that, but its a problem that is often blamed for being the primary benefactor to global warming yet Ive come to believe that this is really is a much more complex problem.
Throughout this forum I have blamed deforestation for the bulk of Co2 level increase, most of which has been the result of human activity dating back hundreds of years now, particuarly in the last 200 years. There is absolutly no question that global deforestation is out of control. Read more of my post throughout this forum for a few statistics on this deforestation. To me its very very simple, several living organisms on this planet are solely responsible for creating and maintaining our oxygen rich atmosphere.
Everything from some sea life to moss, to grass, to plants, and trees, all play a crucial part but by far the biggest oxygen producers on the planet are trees. The less we have, the less efficiently Co2 is recycled back into oxygen. This is largely I believe what has lead to the build up of both naturally occurring CO2, as well as the little man kind has added directly through industry. I don't have a stat for this one but I wouldn't be surprised if well over 99% of the Co2 being created on earth is Naturally occurring, however does this mean man has played an innocent role? Well this is something in a sense you pointed out yourself, you said decaying leaves would have more impact on CO2 than emissions, and Ironically I believe that notion holds water. However this drags man kind right back into the loop again because one thing about deforestation is that its true that its older than man, and there has only been a few extinction level events throughout history that resulted in such a widespread catastrophe that trees were being destroyed faster than they could regrow, but we as a species have taken a toll on this planet that many scientist say hasn't been seen since the extinction of the Dinosaurs.
Today a species of plant or animal go extinct at a rate of over 1 species every hour so says National Geographic, and most of this is plant life or microorganisms. I believe we live at a pivotal point in history and from everything I'm reading and everything I know, while throwing politics right out the window, I really do believe that this generation will go down as one of the last to exist before the next extinction level event is upon us. While We now reap the benifets of a planet that has an ecosystem and climate that is strong and Prominent, several things are coming together today that not everyone realizes. Its like a perfect storm in that one problem has helped accelerate another and another and another, and pretty soon we will reach a point where this process accelerates out of control. Many say we have already reached that point.
Life on earth is about to change for man kind, and while we will survive this catastrophe around the corner, things will not be the same for possibly millenniums to come. I know much of that probably sounds like end of times, superstitious hocus pocus, this is just what I understand of science. I don't know it all, and far from it, but